Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY ACCIDENT, STAVELEY.

Mr. Lee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines what is the latest information he has respecting the explosion that occurred yesterday afternoon at the Markham Colliery, Staveley?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I must apologise for the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines, who is away from London at the present moment and therefore had no knowledge of this question. I have been asked to reply.
My hon. and gallant Friend regrets to have to inform the House that an explosion occurred yesterday afternoon in a double unit conveyor face in the Black-shale Seam at Markham Colliery in Derbyshire: seven persons were killed and several others injured. Investigations by His Majesty's Inspectors are proceeding at the colliery, but no information is yet available as to the cause of the explosion. The House will wish to join in expressing our deep sympathy with the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in this tragic accident.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

11.6 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House will regret that this Measure cannot be introduced by its real sponsor, namely, the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). He, of course, would have taken charge of the Bill had it been presented on the day when he thought it would be presented, but owing to Government business it had to be postponed. Now he is abroad. He is indulging in no more serious business than ski-ing, and he is undoubtedly disproving the old Roman statement, "Facile descensusest," or "It is easy to slide down hill." At any rate, he is free from one-way valleys and speed limits. The Bill is fairly simple, but I think we ought to examine the background of the legislation which has brought forward this particular Measure.
The whole of our road traffic system is founded on three Acts. The first one was that of 1930, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and that was a very imaginative Measure and a very big and bulky document, but it did three very important things. First of all, it introduced compulsory insurance, secondly it did away with the speed limit, and thirdly it endeavoured in a way to control public service vehicles. That was the first time that that very big undertaking was entered upon. It was quite obvious that things were going fast and that other legislation would have to follow, and it was tentative, but the Ministry of Transport was subsequently presided over by the present right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, and although it is, of course, a tradition of English public life that when you take charge of a Department you should know nothing about the subject of which you are in charge—and there is much to be said for it—yet I think it was dangerous to put in charge of the Ministry of Transport a Member

who was at that time a director of a great railway company.
Although I am not saying for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman took a prejudiced view of road transport, he could not help, by virtue of his association with a railway company, but look at road problems through glasses coloured with a certain love for railway, and opposition to road, transport. It was under his aegis that we had inflicted upon us the savage Act of 1933, which dealt very rigidly and very cruelly with all forms of road transport. These two Acts are intermingled and tied up together, and they are even more complicated by the Act which followed, namely, the 1934 Act, known as the Road Traffic Act. There the general law of the country with regard to all motor vehicles was changed, and although the Minister had power at the time to apply speed limits anywhere he liked, he never did apply them, but a certain amount of propaganda was spread throughout the country making it seem desirable to introduce a general speed limit. A general speed limit of 30 miles an hour was tied up with lamp-posts, and when the Bill was nearly through Committee, and in spite of the fact that the Minister had given definite undertakings, when he left and the present Minister came in those solemn undertakings given in Committee were not implemented. Many of us always resented that, because if pledges given by Ministers upstairs are not to be implemented, it seems to me that many of our discussions upstairs are entirely useless. The present Minister of Transport, although I do not for a moment suppose that had he been in power he would have introduced a Measure anything like the 1934 Act, had the responsibility to implement it and to try to make it a success, and he has been staggering under that difficulty ever since. It is quite true to say that he has done his best. The Act was faulty, and in spite of his vigour, in spite of his enthusiasm and enterprise,
What gives rise to no little surprise
Nobody seems one penny the better,
if one may misquote a few words out of the "Jackdaw of Rheims." This particular Measure which I have the privilege of introducing deals with only two small points. Certainly if I had my way I should have introduced a measure almost as big as one of these which I have in my


hand, to change most of the points in these three Acts, because they are three of the most preposterous pieces of legislation that this House has ever put through. They are indeed very complicated, but to start with we have to remember that our public service vehicles are divided into three categories. There are the stage carriage, the express carriage, and the contract carriage. The stage and express carriages have very small differences, one of which is the question of fares, but the contract one is the particular vehicle which has introduced the trouble which we are trying to put right. The contract carriage was one in which you could hire a vehicle for a definite purpose, on a definite occasion, for a definite time, that is, not by paying separate fares, and it is that which has got us into the particular trouble of making it illegal to share a taxicab. The thing really came to a head in the courts in the case of Newell v. Cross, which was heard before the Divisional Court at Ipswich. It will be of interest to the House to know exactly what the judge said in regard to it. Speaking after the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice du Parcq, said:
I agree absolutely with what has been said by my Lord that we are not concerned with the question whether an Act of Parliament is expressed in terms which are too wide and may lead to results repugnant to common sense. I fully realise that the last thing which a Court ought ever to think of doing is to try to alter the law in effect by finding some ingenious means of escape from its clear provisions. Indeed, if it ever does happen, and I am not saying it has happened in this case—that Parliament, owing to the difficulty of drafting a law of general application, has spread the net too wide and has done something which on more mature deliberation Parliament would say it did not intend to do, then the best way of pointing out any defect, if defect it be, in an Act is that it should be rigidly enforced by the Courts, and the worst way of dealing with legislation of that kind is that any authority or any Judge should give any sanction to the view that laws which the public do not like ought to he disregarded or improperly evaded.
The result is that any of us who split a taxi-cab fare can, according to this view, be rigorously prosecuted by the law and sent to gaol. The first Clause of this Bill tries to take some of us away from that dreadful threat which must be hanging over our heads every day in our ordinary lives. Although the Clause is fairly complicated by reference to Acts of the past, it says in effect that a stage

carriage or express carriage which carries less than eight passengers shall be excluded from the prohibition subject to certain conditions being satisfied. We have had to insert many conditions because it was still thought unwise that the sharing of a taxi or vehicle should be a thing that is done every day, or that such a vehicle should be used as a disguise for an express carriage. The arrangement must not be advertised or done as a habit on a definite route, but it must be a casual thing.
The other Clause of the Bill has nothing to do with that question. It refers to a difficulty which has arisen over the licensing of public service vehicles. Under the 1933 Act it was laid down that licences "A," "B" and "C," which are given by the Commissioners, were given a certain time to run. "A" licences were given automatically because, during the first licence year 1934–5, "A" and "B" licences were granted in whole or the greater part without examination owing to the provisions of Section 72 of the 1934 Act, under which applicants were entitled to claim licences to the extent they had used vehicles to carry goods for hire or reward in the standard year. It will be seen that everybody having been given a licence, they all ipso facto came up for renewal at the same time. That has caused great difficulty in the administration of the Commissioners' work. This Clause gives power to the Minister to grant these licences for a longer time should he so desire in order that they need not all come up together and be examined at the same time, but in the best way and at the best time by the Commissioner.
There is also the other point that sometimes under a "B" licence it is advisable not to investigate one claim by itself but to wait for a claim by another operator at a later date, because they are running on the same line and should be examined at the same time, and this enables them to arrange their time-tables so that applications which it is convenient or desirable should be examined at or about the same time should fall due for renewal accordingly. I do not think this Bill is of transcending importance and will alter the lives of any citizens in this country very much, or that it is revolu-


tionary. It deals with two defects in the Acts as they exist to-day, and I think it would be advisable if we could pass it in order to put them right in the easiest possible way.

11.20 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to second the Motion.
This is rather an important Bill, but I shall be brief because there is another Bill to follow. It is a halting step in the right direction. Clause 1 has been ably explained by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I do not propose to go into it. It is a necessary correction based upon experience. Clause 2, as he pointed out, enables the Minister to lengthen the licence period. I want that period to be even longer, and I think that when Clause 2 comes up again it will have to be altered. The first report to 30th September, 1935, shows that the number of vehicles licensed was 459,626. The renewal applications for "B" licences were made and considered in the autumn of 1935, and the renewal applications for "A" licences in the autumn of 1936. Experience has shown that the period was too short and the authorities became overcrowded. The Bill proposes to remedy that. My opinion is that the period is not long enough, and that the Clause will have to read:
or such longer period as may be prescribed, such longer period to be not less than five years.
This will give justice to the road hauliers and prevent the traffic authorities from being overcrowded. It will, too, save considerable time and expense. Most of the congestion in these courts is due to the objections to applications for "A" and "B" licences from the railway companies, who have objected very often on trivial grounds. Sir Josiah Stamp said last year that they deplored the railways' inability to object to 70 per cent. of the goods motor vehicle licences, that is, manufacturers' and traders' "C" licences. These objections are giving the impression to those engaged in the road haulage business that they are being badly bullied by the railway companies. If that is the case, there can be no objection to a longer licence. The legal costs to one applicant alone came to £475 before he could get his licence. British justice may be open to all, but it is open only to

the rich on these terms, and it is ridiculous to suggest that that sort of thing is not going to clutter up the courts. One applicant answered a thousand questions put by the railway authorities, and then he was opposed. There are long, detailed and severe cross-examinations about rates, books and customers, which make the road hauliers feel uncomfortable that their customers are being wheedled away from them. The greatest hostility of the railway companies is reserved for such road hauliers as have the effrontery to have an expanding business. There is a real danger of depriving the trader of road transport facilities, and these costs are a grave item.
If objection is put in, King's counsel is briefed by the railway, and an equally clever King's counsel has to be briefed by the applicant. It is, therefore, a very expensive business. Barrister has to be briefed against barrister. The legal community are again battening on the trading public. Unless the position is altered a rot is bound to set in, and the situation in regard to the road services will not be for the benefit of the community. There is no continuity, there is no stability, no incentive to improvement or expansion. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 enables the authority to shorten the period if that will assist in arranging a convenient programme of work—to shorten the period for the convenience of the authority, I ask the House to note. I hope to see there a provision to say "or lengthen for a limited period." As the Clause stands, the public appear to exist for the convenience of the licensing authority, and that is putting things the wrong way round, but it is an inversion which can easily be remedied in Committee. I trust that the House will see the urgent need for this Bill to clear up the position as regards the licensing authorities, to make programmes easier, and, in short, to make it altogether easier to obtain licences and bring about a smoother flow of traffic.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I am glad that this short Measure has been brought forward, though, for the reasons indicated by the hon. and gallant Member who moved it, I should have been glad if some more substantial Measure had been introduced. I think it is generally agreed that the Act of 1933 was introduced, to be quite


frank, not in the interests of the general public but in the interests of the railways. It was a sequel to what was called the Salter Report. At various gatherings which I attended shortly after the Salter Report appeared, it was denounced with the greatest possible vigour by the road interests, but, unfortunately, they were not as skilful in Parliamentary organisation as are the railway companies, who have had 100 years' experience of how to manage both Houses of Parliament. They have facilities for getting their own way which have been denied to all other interests. If you want to see how legislation should be handled, watch this House when a railway Bill is before it. We then see all sorts of mysterious people who are generally missing at other times.
I may recall that such votes as I gave on the Road and Rail Traffic Act were hostile votes in respect of various Amendments. Not long after it became law I was talking to a shopkeeper who opened the conversation by saying, "Have you people all gone mad?" I asked, "Why do you suggest that?" and his reply was, "I am only judging by the results of your Acts of Parliament. I think you have been stark, staring mad." I pursued my inquiries into his reasons for doubting our sanity, and he explained, "You know that I sell furniture and also carry on a removing business. Suppose you were to commission me to move your furniture from your existing house to another house, and that you found it necessary to get some additional furniture for your new house. The law does not permit me to put the new furniture in the same van with your old furniture. He added, "I think you are lunatics," and I said, "I am afraid I must agree with you," though explaining that in the part which I took in the proceedings on the Bill I was in opposition to many of its provisions and, therefore, had done my best to prove my personal sanity.
A great deal of the procedure under the Act of 1933 cannot be explained on any intelligent grounds. I see no reason why a person who wants to buy a lorry and cart goods round the country should not be permitted to do it, subject only to paying his necessary fees for the use of the road. Why anybody should have the right to say "You shall not enter the business. The door is barred. 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here,'" I cannot

conceive. But this is all part of our modern Fascist legislation, if I may so call it. It is the setting up of the corporate State. We are passing Fascist legislation every day now. It started with the London Traffic Act, 1924. The party opposite were the first Fascists. They followed it up with the Coal Mines Act, 1930, which, broadly speaking, stopped anybody else from entering the coal mining industry, and did not allow those already in it to do their job properly. Yesterday we were passing a similar type of Bill.
I am one of those who still believe that a little liberty ought to be left to us in this country. What appals me is not that all this legislation emanates from those on the opposite benches who want more interference with liberty, but that the chief destroyers of liberty are those on my own side of the House. That is my grievance. I am perfectly certain that if three-quarters of the controversial legislation of the last four years had been introduced by the other side, and we had been in opposition, the whole of our party would have been stampeded against it. What disease has seized upon my party to make them introduce this sort of stuff I have no idea. I hope that this Bill will become law, and that the title is so drawn—it appears to be rather narrowly drawn—that certain Amendments will be in order, because I think we ought to go a little further than the Bill proposes to go; but because it is a Measure which makes some effort to correct a public evil and a real scandal, I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. E. Dunn: I should like to support this Bill, because I regard it as an attempt to correct one or two of the glaring anomalies which exist in connection with the transport business generally, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will give us an interpretation of a particular matter which will clear up a good deal of misapprehension which exists in the country. As I conceive it, this is a small Measure designed to put a section, or two sections, of the transport undertakings of the country in the same position as they were before the Road and Rail Traffic Acts of 1933 and 1934 were passed. All who have had anything to do with the operation of the Road Traffic Act, 1930,


will recollect that when that Measure was under consideration paragraph (c) of Clause 61 was withdrawn. That Subsection really did attempt to do what this Bill now proposes. I suggest that on a true interpretation of it this small Measure is considerably wider in its application than the hon. and gallant Member who introduced it really intends that it should be. He has merely called attention to the anomalies which exist in regard to the sharing of a taxicab, but I suggest that the real difficulty goes far beyond that arising in the case of two persons agreeing to share a taxicab, or three or four persons agreeing to purchase and to run a motor vehicle for transport purposes. Under the Act of 1930, as a result of the withdrawal of paragraph (c) of Clause 61, it was possible not merely for two persons to purchase and to share the costs of running a taxicab, but it was also possible for combinations of men to undertake transport services of their own. I am actually engaged at the present time in operating such a service in the district from which I come. The workmen engaged at a colliery, which has approximately 3,000 miners, have put upon the road a transport service. The object of it is to convey the workmen to and from the colliery. Under the 1930 Act it was possible to do this without any licence, but Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, altered the procedure. There is no question, in the service to which I refer, of hire or reward, and no fares are charged. The workmen have combined together to put a transport service on the road, and it covers approximately 6,000 rides per day. The service has been running since before 1930.
Because the applicable Sub-section of the Road Traffic Act was repealed, it was not necessary to license the service, but the Road Traffic Act, 1934, reinstituted the licence. Consultations took place with the Ministry of Transport on the matter, and we brought responsible Ministers to see the service, which benefits not only the workpeople but the industrial undertaking itself. All those who have seen the service have expressed themselves as amazed that it does not ply for hire or reward and does not compete with other operating services. There is no objection from the latter services within the district. They have also expressed themselves

amazed at the humbug created as a result of the reimposition of the licence. If the Bill will correct anomalies of that kind, it will perform a useful service. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that undertakings operated by workmen are put to considerable annoyance with regard to "A," "B" and "C" licences. His Department knows that the courts have been tested on the question, and that there has been considerable inconvenience to the services in question. A strange picture is presented in the courts by the array of a new set of legal gentlemen who present themselves when applications for licences are to be heard. There are eminent banisters and lawyers of every description. We are annoyed and amazed at the operation of the Section and we regret that annoyance has been caused to the public in connection with these services, which are intended to be of industrial utility and to make industry work smoother than it otherwise would.
I am not concerned merely about the array of legal gentlemen who appear day after day and week after week in the courts. Who could possibly interpret the services to which I refer as being undertaken for hire or reward? Any proceeds have not been for personal profit, but have been used to keep the services on the road for the general good of the industry. I hope this small Measure will cause a reversion back to previous conditions, and will give the same interpretation as was intended by the Act of 1930. That is the basis upon which I support it.

11.43 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I hope that this Bill will put a stop to what I can only describe as tyranny on the part of the railway companies. Certain interests seem to have given orders to their legal departments to oppose automatically any application for licence in any court, and men have to travel from 20 to 40 miles in order to defend their applications. Sometimes they find on getting there, that there has been no need to defend them, and they are put to considerable expense. I am bound to say that, in my own part of the country, the railway companies have brought to bear an intolerable burden upon these people, and I feel that it is my duty to cast about to see whether I can react—and I hope other Members


will, too—to cast as many burdens as I can upon the railway companies in exchange for the unfair system. Small men in my constituency, carrying on a perfectly legitimate trade, are put to considerable expense in connection with quite ordinary licences, and I know that that was not intended by the Ministry of Transport. If I had known when the present Act was passing through the House what its effects would be, I should have opposed it strenuously. I am sorry now that I supported it. It makes one considerably apprehensive of the ideas of hon. Members opposite, who wish to make the railway companies into a State-run organisation. The wide powers which the railway companies already have in opposing these licences are sufficiently strong, and I shall look forward with dread to the position of people who are carrying on a motor trade if anything is done which makes the position of railway companies in this respect even stronger than it is to-day.
If any words of mine can reach the heads of the railway companies, I would beg of them to consider the harm that they are doing to themselves in setting against them people in the country like those who run these businesses, and like the passengers who wish to travel by some of these vehicles. I would like them to consider whether it is worth their while to incur the danger of this tremendous opposition that they are stirring up against themselves. I am very glad that this Bill has been brought in, and I hope that it will be possible to pass it.

47 a.m.

Mr. Sandys: The object of this Bill, which I heartily support, is to confer certain new privileges upon certain classes of vehicles. It may be maintained by the hon. Members responsible for the Bill that these privileges ought to have been extended long ago, that in fact they ought never to have been denied; but nevertheless the fact remains that this Bill would extend certain new privileges to certain classes of vehicles which they have not hitherto legally enjoyed. Those vehicles, for the purpose of what I wish to say, can be divided into two classes. In the first category there are the coach and omnibus services and the taxi-cab services—that is to say, the public-hire conveyances; arid in the other category there are the

private-hire vehicles. At the present time the standard enforced as regards efficiency, comfort and general upkeep in the case of these two classes of vehicles is entirely different, and I submit, while fully supporting the Bill, that this occasion should be taken to raise the standard required in the case of the private-hire vehicles to the same high level at which it is at present enforceable in the case of public-hire vehicles; and it is in that connection that I would like to say a few words.
The conditions which are imposed at the present moment on the proprietors of taxi-cabs all over the country require them to maintain a certain standard for their vehicles, and in the larger towns the vehicles are subject to regular inspection. In London the standard laid down by the police is extremely high. In the first place, the police regulations set out a definite specification for chassis and for body, and consequently the price which these cab proprietors have to pay for their vehicles is to that extent higher. The taxi-cab has to be overhauled at regular intervals, and after it has been on the road a certain number of years it is the practice of the police to inspect the vehicle before it is overhauled, and to specify the exact repairs which are to be made. That often involves the taxi-cab owner in considerable expense. Furthermore, the police lay down in London a time limit of 10 years for the life of a taxi-cab, which again is a further restriction upon the taxi-cab owner, and is a further guarantee to the public of good and efficient service. What is more, the police can walk up to any taxi-cab and put what they call a "stop notice" on it, preventing it from plying for hire until certain deficiencies have been remedied. In other words, the taxi-cab has by law to be maintained in a proper road-worthy state and to maintain a prescribed standard of efficiency.
In contrast to this, the private-hire car can be any old car from any junk-heap. It is not subjected to inspection for road-worthiness, and there is no standard for its maintenance. Any cheap car can be used, and no age limit is set for it by the authorities. Of course one realises that there is a definite need for the private-hire car, but I feel, and I think many hon. Members will agree with me, that these private-hire vehicles,


particularly in view of the fact that the object of this Bill is to extend their activities, should be regarded, so far as efficiency and the maintenance of a certain standard are concerned, as public vehicles, and that it should be the duty of the authorities to see that they are in a safe state for the public to ride in and in such a condition as to be able to perform their function properly. Therefore, in supporting the Bill and wishing it a smooth passage, I would submit that, in extending the privileges of certain classes of vehicles, it is most desirable in the interests of public safety, in the interests of public comfort, and in the interests of fair competition, that the same high standard should be enforceable on all classes of vehicles which are to benefit under this Bill.

11.52 a.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I want to make only one small point which illustrates the application of this Measure to village life. I will give a single illustration, but I take it that it will probably be typical of many. In my own village, which is five miles from Hatfield and six miles from Hertford, to get to either of these places costs the ordinary villager a considerable sum of money. Until quite recently, a small man of enterprise has been running a car of which the women of the village were able to make use to go to either Hatfield or Hertford or other more distant towns like St. Albans, sharing the expense between them. Now they are unable to do that, owing to the decision to which reference has been made and to which this Bill applies. The hardship is obvious in any village of this sort. The women must be prepared to pay 5s. or 7s. 6d., which none of them can afford to do, and they cannot go into those towns either for shopping or perhaps for such purposes as attending educational, religious, political and other meetings or the women's institutes and so on which have done so much to brighten village life. Hitherto they have been able to divide the expense between them which has helped materially, but this was abolished by the decision in question, and the service for the time being is in suspense. I hope—I am not quite clear about it—that the Bill will be passed in such a form as to meet this case, and I

would plead with it on behalf of the life of the villages of this country.

11.54 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I now state very briefly the attitude of the Government towards this little Bill. It has given an opportunity for various Members of the House to give their views, both on the Road Traffic Acts and on the deeds of the railway companies; but I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill is designed to deal only with two comparatively small points in connection with the administration of the law as affecting motor vehicles. On both those points the Government feel that some alteration of the law is desirable. The matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) about people forming themselves into clubs for their transport is not dealt with at all under the Bill. It is another subject altogether. This Bill cannot either make their position better or worse. As regards the railway companies, in as far as Clause 2 permits the Minister to lengthen the duration of the licences of hauliers, it will mean that they will come before the licensing authority, less often, when the railway companies may oppose the licence, so in that respect they will be better off than they are at the moment.
Clause 1 deals with what is called "splitting a taxi." Public service vehicles have to be licensed under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, by the Traffic Commissioners, and it is an offence to cause or permit a vehicle to be used as an express or stage carriage without the necessary licences. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) made one small slip. It is not a contract carriage, but an express or stage carriage to which this Clause refers. Parliament endeavoured, under Section 61 of the Act, to meet special cases of this kind and in Subsection (1) of that Section it met the case of race meetings and public gatherings, but covered no other case. That proviso still stands. The case of hiring a taxi for race meetings as dealt with by the proviso is not altered in the slightest by this Bill. Experience has shown that Parliament drew the Act wider than was intended and it has been made clear in


a Divisional Court that, as it stands, any two people who arrange to hire a taxicab and agree that each shall contribute to the fare, provided they do not come under the proviso, are committing a criminal offence by using the vehicle without a road service licence. The Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice du Parcq clearly stated that in their opinion the law should be altered, and under this little Bill it is proposed to alter the law by stating in Clause I that a vehicle adapted to carry fewer than eight passengers shall not be regarded as a stage or express carriage, even though it is used to carry passengers at separate fares, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. The terms of the Clause are in accordance with suggestions contained in a circular letter to interested bodies and are such that in cases of bona fide "splitting a taxi" there should be no real difficulty in complying with them. On the other hand, we feel that they will create great difficulty for anyone who seeks to use the Bill to get round the provisions of the ordinary licensing law.

Mr. Dunn: Is not the provision under the 1930 Act really wider in its application than merely "splitting a taxi"? It may be a case of eight persons being conveyed to and from their work. Does not the same interpretation stand and, if it applies to eight, why not to 800?

Captain Hudson: The whole point is that the Bill has been drafted to deal with one small point. The question that the hon. Member raised as regards Section 26 of the Act of 1934 is a different matter altogether. If the hon. Member looks at the bottom of the first page of the Bill he will see that it is "not exceeding four" and not "not exceeding eight." That is the reason that the Subsection was put in, in order that it should deal simply with the case of "splitting a taxi." However, no doubt these matters can be dealt with in Committee. I agree that it may be necessary to ask the promoters to amend the Bill slightly, and we can go in detail into it in Committee.
As regards Clause 2, the present position is that "A" licences have a currency of two years, "B" licences of one year and "C" licences of three years. We feel that the experimental period may now be assumed to be over and that the necessity for renewing carriers' licences at such frequent intervals as this imposes an un-

necessary burden both upon operators and on licensing authorities. The object of the Clause is to give the Minister power to extend the normal period of any class of licence as soon as he is satisfied that the position warrants such an extension. Before exercising this power the Minister would consult the Transport Advisory Council and, in addition, under Section 26 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, he is obliged to consult all the interests concerned before making any regulations, so that everyone would have every opportunity of stating their case before any alteration in the periods of these licences is made.
Clause 2 (2) is consequent upon the suggested lengthening of the period under Sub-section (1). It is simply designed to facilitate the machinery of renewal, and we think it will make both for the convenience of the Traffic Commissioners and of the operators, because it will make it possible for the Traffic Commissioners to arrange a reasonable spread-over to avoid congestion at one period of the year and comparative slackness at another, and it will allow them to arrange for various classes of applications to fall for renewal together. They will also, if they wish, be able to take all the applications for one part of their area at the same time, which will be a convenience both to the operators and the Traffic Commissioners. Of course, adjustments will be able to be made with regard to the fees payable if the period is shortened in this way. We feel that the Bill should be a useful addition to the traffic law, and we hope the House will see its way to pass it into law.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: There seems to be no opposition in any part of the House to the Bill and, generally speaking, one would welcome the speech of the representative of the Ministry. It is to be regretted, however, that he has not given any hope of real and careful consideration with a view to removing grievances of the kind my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I hope that the fact that we give an unchallenged passage to the Bill, because we are in sympathy with its objects, does not mean that the Ministry will not examine the problems that my hon. Friend has raised.

Captain Hudson: It was not through any discourtesy on my part, but this


point could not be dealt with within the scope and title of the Bill, and that is why I did not deal with it.

Mr. Alexander: I recognise that fact, but I do not think that in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary very much hope was held out for dealing with the point that has been raised. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) endeavoured to advance some of, shall I say, his wide or narrow theories which he often takes the opportunity to advance to the House on Private Members' days. Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with him in any opposition to what might be called the development of the corporate state, if the corporate state is the maintenance of sectional monopolies for private profit. I should have thought that, with the very bad state of the casualty lists in the road and transport industry to-day, his suggestion for complete uncontrol was worthy of more examination before we allowed it to be adopted.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I would point out that with regard to the use of the road, the private motorists, who are far more numerous, are free to make use of it without asking for permission.

Mr. Alexander: Some approach has been made in that direction, and there is no question at all that something will have to be done if you are to stop the slaughter, which is now approaching something in the nature of the casualty list of a first-class war. Therefore freedom of that kind must really be examined from the point of view of public welfare. I w ill not pursue the point, but I hope that he will see that there is clearly some common sense behind it. When, however, I turn to the active provisions of the Bill, I welcome the Bill very heartily, and the promoters of the Bill will probably recognise why. It is because of the great interest in the movement with which I am connected in one of the particular cases decided in the Scottish courts. I would ask on this account whether the promoters of the Bill cannot possibly see their way in Committee—and they might consider it in the meantime—to put the provisions in the proviso upon rather more logical lines. The proviso has to deal with all vehicles carrying fewer than eight passengers, but the arrangement under paragraph (a)

of the proviso is limited to four passengers, and I am unable to understand the difference between the two.
I make this statement for the reason that we have—and these are cases perhaps of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle)— a large number, I am thankful to say, of institutions erected for the working classes in this country in rural areas. There are miners' and other trade union and Co-operative canvalescent homes, and over and over again it is almost impossible to obtain convenient arrangements for relatives and friends of those who are in those homes to get to out-of-the-way, but healthy situations in order to visit the people who are recovering, unless they can hire a motor car or a conveyance of some kind to get there which will not confine them to time tables and schedules and long journeys.

Sir F. Fremantle: And for the patients themselves.

Mr. Alexander: Yes. The case I have in mind on which there was a decision of the court was one of that kind. We have many vehicles available for hire to-day which carry from six to seven passengers, and they are perfectly good vehicles in spite of what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has said. He might be able to produce a few bad ones, but it seems unreasonable to limit the number of passengers that might be carried under this proviso to four. I hope that if we give the Bill a free passage to-day, we may have an assurance from the promoters that they will be willing to consider that point in Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. Windsor: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The principle embodied in this Bill has had rather a checkered career in this House, and perhaps I may be permitted briefly to make a few observations about the history of the principle that is embodied. In 1931 the hon. Member for the combined English Universities (Miss


Rathbone) brought in a Bill which was read a Second time by this House on the understanding that it was sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses. They took evidence and the matter was considered, and the Bill was brought back again, when, unfortunately, it was talked out. In 1931 the main opposition to the Bill appeared to be that the number of people involved in bad and unjust wills were so negligible that it would be quite unreasonable to pass such a Measure. It was pointed out that, although the number might not be unduly large, it was certainly sufficiently large to justify the introduction of a new Bill. I will give one quotation from the report issued by the Joint Committee, who in paragraph 7 said:
The Committee, however, are of opinion that it is wrong that a surviving spouse or child, who is otherwise without adequate means of support, should be left without such means of support, owing to the terms of the deceased spouse's will, and that such spouse or child should be able to obtain such means of support by application to the court, the amount to be measured by the amount of the estate and the circumstances in which the family had been living. The Committee are unable to amend the Bill so as to bring it into harmony with this recommendation, but they consider that a Measure on these lines would he worthy of serious consideration by Parliament.
The matter was again brought before the House in 1934 by, I believe, the hon. Member for Kidderminister (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), and the Bill was sent upstairs and was amended in Committee. It was brought on to the Floor of the House, but it was again unfortunate and was talked out.
The Bill for which I am asking a Second Reading to-day is almost on entirely similar lines to the one which was introduced in 1934. The only difference is that there is a proviso in Clause 5, otherwise the Bill is entirely the same. It is a very peculiar anomaly that England and Wales are about the only two countries in the civilised world where such a provision is not permitted in the law. Already in Scotland they have a much wider principle embodied in their law. This principle is embodied in the law of New Zealand and Australia, and also in many provinces of Canada. The Bill is based upon the law which is operating in New Zealand and Australia. The fact that the subject has been a matter for debate in this House and in Committee

on such a number of occasions renders it unnecessary for me to make any long or laboured statement as to the provisions embodied in it.
Indeed I should think that every Member of the House must have received from time to time an enormous number of letters from constituents pointing out the unjust treatment that many spouses have unfortunately suffered from. I could read from a batch of letters which I have here, but I shall not do so. I shall only refer briefly to them. I have a letter from an old lady of over 70 who was unjustly left out of an estate to which she had contributed with her husband in building up a business. Unfortunately, either from caprice or for some other reason, she has been left out of all benefit from the estate. Her husband would have been compelled to maintain her during life, but because he is dead no responsibility rests upon him. That woman is drawing an old age pension of 10s. a week, whereas if she had had justice she would be living in decency, if not in comfort.
There are innumerable instances of that kind. For instance, cases where a young woman has married an older man, and it may be sacrificed a career in the industrial world in order to help the husband and the family. Then suddenly, because of some strange fancy of the man for someone else, she, the second wife, is left out of consideration altogether. It is to remedy such evils as these that the Bill is drafted. I have no desire to weary the House with a lengthy statement because I believe that hon. Members are fully aware of all the implications of the Bill and the reasons for the Bill. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. G. Hardie: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope that the House if for nothing else but its relative sense of justice, will offer no opposition to the Bill. What we are really dealing with is the implementing of a contract known as marriage. When marriage takes place under the law it means that there are certain responsibilities to be assumed. The marriage law means this if it means anything: The word "honour" that is used in the marriage ceremony implies everything


that this Bill seeks to provide, and even more. The liabilities that are involved in that word "honour" have not seemingly yet been fully realised in English law. In Scottish law we have always realised the relation of the individual to a contract. I am not going to boast about Scottish law in comparison with English law, and I shall state only the facts. In nearly every Scottish law dealing with a contract between two or more individuals the individuals contracting are protected on both sides, but under the law of England, no matter how great the pledges at the marriage contract, with all the blessings called down from above, there is not that protection, and we find in our daily Press the most harassing details. Whatever the reason may be for the change between the man and the woman, that should surely not be made the basis of ill-treatment of the offspring. Most hon. Members will have read in the Press recently about a man, fairly wealthy, who seemingly did not get on with his wife or family, and he took it upon himself to leave all that he had for the care of animals. While we all feel that the animal world has to be protected by the human, we must not pass over the protection of the human first, especially in relation to this contract.
The Bill seeks to protect the woman and the children from the callous type of mind. It has been argued in previous investigations of this subject that there was little of this sort of thing. It does not matter what the quantity is. If it is a wrong it ought to be righted. If there are only Zoo wives and families suffering, they should not be called upon to suffer. If they suffer it does not suggest a sense of justice running through the community, falling, as the rain does, on the just and the unjust. The claim of the Bill is to secure a greater sense of justice. What responsibility have the children? They have done nothing that they should be called upon to suffer under the iniquitous law as it exists; they have done nothing to deserve being treated so by a callous father, being denied the education that they should have, being denied the right to the proper living which they should have enjoyed. Why take evidence on the subject? I never can understand why we should take

evidence about a thing that is so obviously staring everyone in the face. Everyone knows the injustice that exists. Why talk about evidence? Why not take the facts relating to other countries that do justice in this matter? The evil exists and that should be enough for its destruction.
Under the Scottish law what we do is this: In the case of an estate where there are no children the wife takes half and no one can disturb that arrangement. It does not matter whether the man and woman have disagreed; no matter what the reason for any difference between the man and woman that arrangement cannot be disturbed. It should not be disturbed. The contract has taken away from the woman especially certain rights that she would have had if not married. When a man treats his wife in the way that the Bill seeks to remedy she is often left in a predicament. If she seeks employment there is difficulty, there is an askance look when she seeks work, and people say there must have been faults on both sides. It is not a question here as to what is the reason for the difference between man and wife. The question is their relation to a contract solemnly taken and given, and the responsibilities that must follow.
I have spoken of an estate when there are no children. Where there are children what happens in Scotland is this: The wife takes one-third and the children take one-third, and nothing can disturb that division. It does not matter what mental kinks the husband and father might develop. Scottish law protects both the woman and the children. I hope that without seeming to be pushing Scotland too much into the picture I have induced the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is not a question of asking English Members to adopt these proposals because Scotland has done so. I ask that they be adopted because of the justice that underlies them.
I know of a case, about seven miles from this House, where a marriage took place some years ago. There are four fine children and, as far as the neighbours can judge, the wife has given every ounce of her efforts towards doing her best for the family and her husband. What has happened? Because some change has taken place in the husband's mind, not only in relation to his wife


but through her to the family, the man can simply put his marriage contract and all his responsibilities on one side. He is busy trying to do that now. In the event of that man being run over to-day by a motor car or finding himself in some difficulty and having to leave this world, under the arrangement as it stands that woman and the children would be left without a halfpenny. That is the kind of thing that should make it possible for a Bill like this to have immediate access to the Statute Book. Following the example of my hon. Friend, I will conclude with a brief speech. I regret the absence of so many hon. Members this morning, because on such a question as this, and in view of the suffering that we know exists, I could have wished that there had been a better attendance in order to make sure that the public realise that the House of Commons as a whole stands for justice to those who have no help for themselves.

12.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Beaumont: I find myself, in regard to this Measure, in a certain amount of difficulty so far as the Bill is founded on the report of the Joint Select Committee, of which I was a member. Some years ago the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) who, as we all know, has this matter very much at heart, introduced a Bill of a different character, to which some of us took very great exception. That Measure was remitted to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which issued a report broadly along the lines on which this Bill has been drafted. By giving my assent to that report of the Joint Select Committee it follows, naturally and implicitly, that I should not oppose such a Measure when it was brought forward. Therefore, in the circumstances I cannot vote against the Bill should it go to a Division, nor can I take any part in trying to oppose it. but it would be idle to contend that I view it with any great affection. Should a Division come I shall vote in favour of the Bill, but I do not think that it would be right to allow the Measure to go forward without putting the other side of the case.
The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading—I regret that I heard only a portion of his speech—and the hon. Member who has just sat down, put

with great force and great sympathy the point of view of those who support the Bill, the point of view of the hard case. On the question of principle I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). He talked as if marriage ipso facto gave to the surviving spouse inherent rights in the estate of the deceased spouse. This Bill, very rightly, applies to both sexes. We generally talk of the wife of the comparatively well-to-do husband who is left devoid of means, because that is the more common case, but the converse is also true, occasionally, and it would be possible under this Bill, if it becomes law, for the husband to make application for maintenance from the wife's estate, just as the wife could make application in respect of the husband's estate. The hon. Member for Springburn spoke as if marriage gave the spouse an inherent right in the wealth of the man or woman he or she marries. I deny that. While the marriage remains, while the couple remain together, we know that it is rightly the duty of the husband to support the wife, but I frankly deny the claim that after death there is any inherent, inalienable right to the fortune of the husband.

Mr. Hardie: Does the hon. Member say that if he had children who were left behind, while he did not want the wife to get anything, he would deny the children anything from the estate?

Mr. Beaumont: Happily, I hope that I should never be in that position, but I deny that there would be anything —it may be bad taste—inherently wrong if I did so. I may be old-fashioned—I am not ashamed of it—but I still believe in the right of the man to do what he likes with his own.

Mr. Hardie: Are not his children his own?

Mr. Beaumont: Exactly. He should do what he likes with his own. I do not believe that good, on the whole, will come from interfering with a man's or a woman's testamentary provisions, except in very extreme cases. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk as if when this kind of thing happens it is always the one who is left penniless that has given up the best years of his or her life to look after the other. Let us put it in another way. Take the case of the


man or the woman—I am ashamed to say that in most cases my own sex have been the greatest offenders—who marries for the money of the husband or the wife, as the case may be, and who, once they are safely married, behave disgracefully, pay no attention to the happiness of the spouse with whom they are living and make his or her life a hell. Do hon. Members contend that, having done that, having married, almost frankly, for money, having done nothing to carry out their marriage obligations, they should be entitled to a portion of the estate on the decease of the spouse whom they have treated so badly?

Mr. Pritt: Will the hon. Member draw attention to a single line in the Bill that gives anybody any inherent right to any money unless the court considers he or she is entitled to it?

Mr. Beaumont: I am dealing with the arguments that were advanced by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). What the hon. and learned Member says is perfectly true, and that is the reason why I am not going to oppose the Bill. But the hon. Member for Springburn was laying it down as a principle that a spouse had a right to a portion of the estate. I put the opposite case, where the spouse who is left penniless has not carried out the marriage contract, and I say that such a spouse has no right to expect to be provided for. When you get that kind of case no man, no judge, no tribunal, can say what is really justice. You cannot tell in marital relations what is the justice of the case and what is not; no outsider can; and for that reason if for no other I dislike the principle which underlies the Measure. I think more harm than good is done when you interfere with the testamentary disposition of a man or woman.

Mr. Hardie: No harm is done in Scotland.

Mr. Beaumont: I listened carefully to the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee and as a mere Sassenach I say that I was not impressed that the conditions in Scotland were materially better than those in England. You have the other side of the picture, where people do not fulfil the marriage contract and take a proportion of the estate to which

they are not entitled. That is an injustice the other way. I am not impressed by the conditions in Scotland. I do not care for the principle of the Measure and no overwhelming case on the ground of sympathy and justice has been made out for the Bill. There is nothing in the Measure which gives a right to any portion of the estate, the whole thing is left to the decision of the Courts on an application, and I think that the number of such applications will be few. Each case must be carefully investigated and all the circumstances ascertained. I say that there is no inalienable right to any portion of the estate and the discretion is entirely a matter for one of His Majesty's judges. Although I think the Bill unsound in principle I think it will do very little harm. It may possibly do some good. I hope so. I could not allow the Measure to pass without making these observations, and if it goes to a Division I shall vote for the Second Reading and if it reaches the Statute Book I wish it good luck and Godspeed.

12.39 p.m.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: I want to express my approval of the Bill. If there is a division I hope it will be taken soon and that the Bill will not be defeated by any of the accidents which defeated it on former occasions. I am supporting the Measure mainly because it is part of the movement for doing justice to women. I am a feminist and wish to see women placed in a position of absolute equality with men. The Bill will help to do justice to women. There is no doubt the vast number who will benefit by it will be women, and I shall be glad to see it pass as part of that movement, which I am glad to say has become stronger and stronger within the last few years, so that the time will come when no woman will be able to accuse men of not doing justice. That is my principal reason for supporting the Bill, apart from the fact that it will prevent England alone standing out as practically the only country which does not make such provision as is made in Scotland and in other parts of the world.

12.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I have listened to the interesting speeches of hon. Members opposite in favour of the Bill on this as on previous occasions, and I pay my tribute to the sincerity of their views and to the fact that they believe the Bill will do good. I confess that I do not share their views. I consider that the kind of changes which the Bill seeks to introduce are rather too big for a private Member's Bill, and this is proved by the fact that the Measure has been put off from time to time. It has been before Select Committees and Joint Select Committees and ordinary committees who have expressed considerable doubts as to the effect of certain Clauses. The protagonists of the Measure are ardent feminists. They talk about hard cases, which undoubtedly exist, and they think that by putting these hard cases right they are going to do no harm to anybody else. I have read all the evidence or as much as I can on this matter, and I am not sure that the promoters are not going to do a great deal of harm. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) said that England was the only country left which maintained the law in its present state. I am not at all impressed by that argument. Can anybody say that the will system of England is worse than that of any other country, or that the women and children in those countries which have such a provision as this are any better off than the women and children in England? If you go to Scotland you will find hard cases.

Mr. Hardie: Mention a case.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: If a man or woman in Scotland wants to get round the provisions of this Bill they can do it by means of the marriage settlement. That is what I am told. They can make the provisions of this Bill of non-effect. I am glad that the Bill deals equally with men and women. What will be the effect of its provisions in this country? I am bound to say that in the case of a person making a will disposing of money only, this Bill would be comparatively easy to manage, but in cases where much is in property, such as houses, land or any other sort of property, it would be preferable to leave it to the man or the woman making the will than to the courts or lawyers to decide on the distribution of the property. There is one thing on

which I would like some enlightenment from the promoters of the Bill. If a man has house property or a small holding, for instance, would he be allowed under this Bill to dispose of it as he thinks fit to the children who would most benefit from it, or would it have to be decided by the courts?

Mr. Hardie: It would have to he decided in the courts if there were any dispute.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I object to that, because it would entail so many legal expenses, and I think it must be dealt with specifically in the Bill. Another objection to the Bill is that in a big family the children might differ greatly in character. A man making a will could decide which kind of property and how much money the different children would best be capable of handling. I would rather have the man or woman making the will decide on that point than leave it to the courts and lawyers to settle afterwards. Those are my thoughts on the personal side of the Bill, a side which I do not think has received sufficient attention. Let me refer briefly to the position in France, where this question is regulated much more than it is in this country. The property owned by a married couple is divided up very extensively on death, and the effect is that whole families have to live together in order to work a small holding or an estate. That suits the French. I do not know whether the effect would be the same in this country, and that the married children would have to live together in the same house to carry on an estate or business as is done in France. I do not think that married children in this country would make a success of that sort of thing if they were driven to it by this Bill. I am sure those are some of the things which the promoters of the Bill have not anticipated.
With regard to the question of appealing to the courts, I do not like this business of always going to the courts for decisions with regard to doubtful wills and their meaning. If people have to go to the courts and say that, in accordance with the Bill, if it becomes an Act, they want an increase in their allowance or in the amount of money left to them under a will, it will lead to something which so far we have avoided in this country. In


the United States of America one constantly hears of cases of people demanding allowances of £20,000 a year or £200,000 a year—they deal with much larger sums than we deal with—according to what I think would be called an interpretation of "reasonable provision" in Clause r of the Bill. I would not like to see happening in this country that which happens in America, where people apply to certain courts in order to get a satisfactory interpretation of "reasonable provision" because they know the judges in those courts have a tendency to decide in a certain way. I should be very sorry to see this country slip into the American practice of dealing with wills. I have perhaps raised several very wide issues, and I have a great many objections to this Bill on what I might call Committee points. I submit to the House that it would not be wise to give the Bill a Second Reading, because it raises far wider issues, in changing the social system of the country, than the promoters envisage.

Mr. Louis Smith: I beg to second the Amendment.

12.52 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I have from the beginning supported the Bills which have been introduced to effect the same results as this Bill. The original Bill was introduced in the form of putting into operation the Scottish procedure, which divides up the free estate of the testator among certain people. An hon. Member opposite rather questioned—and his query was taken up by an hon. Member on this side —whether that was so. I will answer him by saying that undoubtedly it is possible to defeat the Scottish Measure by making a settlement which provides for the property going a certain way.

Mr. Hardie: Does the hon. Member forget the Scottish law regarding what is heritable and what is entailed?

Sir J. Withers: During my experience I have had to deal with the particular question as to whether the heritable, or, as we call it, real and personal estate, should be dealt with in the same way—

Mr. Hardie: There is always something moveable when an estate is broken up.

Sir J. Withers: Sometimes it is very limited. For instance, suppose a Scots-

man who had £1,000,000 left £999,000 to strangers, and only left the balance to be dealt with under the Scottish law. When the matter was before the Select Committee, the Committee saw the disadvantages of the Scottish law and recommended the procedure in the Bill, which I support wholeheartedly. I cannot see that it can possibly do any harm. It applies only in cases where some obvious injustice has been done, and the only serious criticism I have heard of it yet is that the Bill is one for helping lawyers, which, to a certain extent, of course, it is. I feel, however, that it would very rarely be put into operation. In the first place, happily there are not very many cases of unjust wills, and this Bill will deter people from making them. They will know that an unjust will can be put right. If a person goes to his solicitor and wishes to disinherit, let us say, his son for some unjust whim, as people sometimes do, then, of course, the solicitor will say to him, "Do not be such a fool as to do that. It will only mean that Tom—or whatever his name is —after your death will apply to the courts and the courts will find that you have acted unreasonably in this matter and will put it right." I have practised for 45 years in these matters, and I am bound to say from my experience that cases of unjust provision for wives and families are rare, but there are some very bad cases and there is no method whatever at present of putting them right. I certainly think that those cases are sufficiently important, and sufficiently numerous, even though they are not very numerous, to justify some provision being made for putting them right. This is the only way in which we can do it. Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and that the Committee to which it is sent will deal with it in a favourable way.

Mr. Hardie: In speaking of contracting out, did the hon. Member mean without consultation with the wife?

12.58 p.m.

Sir Reginald Craddock: I warmly support the Bill, which carries on the face of it obvious justice and the remedying of injustice. Naturally, as a general rule, the will of a testator should be respected. If it were otherwise there would be endless disputes. But this Bill covers the particular case of an unjust or vindictive-


will or wills such as have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). I do not think that on the merits any hon. Member can seriously dispute the justice of this proposal although, no doubt, many would be able to cite particular cases of difficulty which may arise. I am not a lawyer, but I have had a good deal to do with initiating and carrying through legislation, and I have always found one of the difficulties in legislation to be that of avoiding the hard cases which rigidity in the law is bound, sometime or other, to create. I have found, generally, that although a particular law may in the majority of cases be a sound proposition, it is extremely difficult always to deal with borderline cases, and even genuinely hard cases where there is rigidity in the law.
My own experience in the matter of preparing legislation and watching its effects has been that there are always loopholes in Acts of this kind and they are often loopholes through which injustices may creep. On those grounds I have always found, in practice, that if certain discretions can be left, for the purpose of avoiding hard cases, one may with safety trust to our judges to exercise those discretions reasonably. Those are cases in which judges can act according to what they consider to be, in the circumstances, equity and justice, and not merely on a strict interpretation of the law, which might otherwise compel them to give decisions which their own intelligence would show to be extremely hard and unjust on particular individuals. For those reasons, I warmly support a Measure which provides for such contingencies.
As between the rigidity of the provisions of the Scottish law in this respect and complete freedom for the testator, I welcome this proposal which follows the practice in our Dominions—and a very good practice too—of enabling borderline cases and cases of whimsical or vindictive wills to be dealt with at the discretion of an authority which is fully qualified to do so. I have very high opinion of the sense of equity of our judges.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Sir R. Craddock: I am glad that the attempt to count out the House did not succeed, but I had almost finished my remarks when the count was called. As I say, I welcome this legislation heartily, and I feel sure that the number of cases which will arise under it will be few. The question to be decided, after all, is generally one of whether sufficient has been left under a will for the maintenance of the surviving spouse or the children, and it will be in those cases in which estates are small and the parties concerned poor, that the benefit of this Measure will be particularly felt. People of that kind will be most deeply concerned in a provision of this kind for carrying out justice and providing adequate maintenance for those who are entitled to it.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: Like the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), I am very glad the House was not counted out, because I am supporting this Bill wholeheartedly. I merely wish to ask one question. Under the Bill a child can, on application to the courts, receive maintenance, and I want to know whether a child is in this case only a minor or whether it could be taken to include a man who has grown up in a bad state of health and is unable to support himself. If it is the former only, I am inclined to think that there is a slight flaw in the Bill there, which could perhaps be remedied in Committee. In conclusion, I think it is far better for, say, a widow or a widower who has behaved badly to a husband or a wife, to receive money which she or he does not deserve, than that a number of people who are left destitute should not receive that maintenance to which they are entitled.

1.6 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: Only one hon. Member who has spoken so far has been opposed to the Bill, and therefore there is very little left for those who support it to say, but I would like very briefly to sum up the arguments that have been used and to put some points to the House. First of all, I would like to remind the House that it would really be stultifying itself if it should refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill after its previous action. This matter has received, in the form of a Bill which I introduced five


or six years ago based on the Scottish model, a substantial Second Reading, and it received the full discussion of a Joint Select Committee, which almost unanimously preferred the form of legislation now embodied in this Bill. Then a Bill which was practically the same as this was introduced by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), which went through its Second Reading and Committee stages and only did not pass its Report stage owing to lack of time.
I would like to remind the House that if anyone tries to pick holes in this Bill on the ground of defective drafting, he will find himself in somewhat of a difficulty, because in effect this Bill in matters of technical workmanship is very largely the product of the predecessor of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General himself. The Government spokesmen, making it clear that they were not doing it because they were sponsoring the Bill, but merely in order that it might be in a workmanlike shape, practically rewrote it in Committee and on the Report stage. Indeed, the Attorney-General, in discussing the Bill moved by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, actually on the Report stage twitted the hon. Member for having shown himself so complacent in accepting nearly all his suggestions. There may have been certain small points which he did not accept, but if there are any points in the Bill of which the Government or the House in their wisdom do not approve, they may still be dealt with in Committee.

The Solicitor-General: (Sir Terence O'Connor): I must point out that the Bill as now printed does not embody a good many Amendments of importance in the previous Bill which were suggested by the Government. They do not appear in the present Bill.

Miss Rathbone: I am sorry if that is so, but this Bill certainly does embody a great many such Amendments, because I remember reading only this morning a speech by the hon. and learned Member's predecessor in which he twitted my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster with his facility in accepting certain Amendments, and I thought

they also appeared in this Bill. There is one substantial change in this Bill which was a concession to the known views of the Government on the question of the reference of cases of smaller estates to the county courts. We know that representatives of the Government took strong objection to that Clause in Committee, and so a provision was introduced into the Bill providing that such cases could not be dealt with by the county courts until after several years' experience of the working of the Measure. That was done specifically to meet in some way the objections made by the then Attorney-General.
We may anticipate, whether in Committee or elsewhere, the objection, already made indeed, that after all there are only a few cases of injustice. Although relatively, of course, such cases are very few, the number of cases of injustice which this Bill would meet is larger than some people suppose. As the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) pointed out, injustice is largely prevented if testators know that if they make an unreasonable will, it will be put right. The very knowledge that that is so will prevent them making such a will, and I am convinced that it would be wrong to judge as to the number of cases from the number known even to experienced people such as the hon. Member for Cambridge University. People naturally avoid, as far as possible, washing their dirty linen in public by bringing their grievances to the public notice. Therefore, a great many unjust wills are made and executed which never come before the notice of the law.
Another point is that I am sure that this power to make such wills is used in terrorem over many unfortunate spouses and children. If a man is naturally of a tyrannical disposition and has a wife, a son, or a daughter who will not do everything he wants, he threatens them with disinheritance after his death, and such cases never come before the lawyers. If one makes the surely modest estimate that one husband in a thousand is a bad husband, capable of making an unjust will, and that there are 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 couples living in households in this country, that gives 8,000 husbands who are capable of making such a will. That is not a trivial number, yet it does


not involve a satirical view of human nature to suppose that the number may be as great as that. Therefore, I believe that if this Bill passes into law, it will prevent a great deal of injustice as well as making illegal a comparatively small number of actually bad wills.
I want to make an appeal to the learned Solicitor-General. We know that if this Bill passes its Second Reading at this stage in the Session it may be very difficult to get it passed into law this year, and I do beg him to give the House an opportunity at least of expressing its opinion once again and of voting on this Bill, if it is only with this object, that surely the time will then have come when the Government themselves will take this matter up. One hon. Member who spoke said that this was more a question for the Government than for a private Member. I only wish it was. I think it is far too great a question and too flaming a case of injustice to be left to the chances of private Members' legislation, but since the Government have not yet taken it up, I suggest that if this Bill does not pass into law this Session, they should at least consider whether this is not a question on which a Bill could be carried through without casting any burden on the public purse. All Governments naturally think about anything, especially at the end of their term of office, which will cause them unpopularity.
I do not think the Bill has an enemy in the country. I do not know any society that has voted against it or any women's organisation that has not petitioned in favour of the Bill over and over again. That is not because it favours only women. I could tell the House of half a dozen cases at least where the woman has been the wrongdoer and sons and widowers have been the sufferers. Naturally, however, the majority of those affected are women because far more often the woman is economically dependent on the husband and is, therefore, left in a serious difficulty if he disinherits her. Very often it is a daughter who has never been allowed to earn her own living, having spent her time looking after her widowed father, and then he leaves her destitute because of some whim or fancy towards a wife he marries in the last few years or months of his life.
Therefore, I would appeal to the Government not to oppose the Second Read-

ing, but to give the Bill every chance in Committee, and, if it does not then pass, to take it in their own hands and bring at long last an end to this injustice in which Great Britain is practically alone among civilised countries. It is an injustice which enables a man or woman to escape out of the most solemn responsibility any man or woman can take upon themselves by slipping out of life without giving notice of his or her intention to disinherit. It is the meanest thing that can be done. Very often they do it without telling the unfortunate man or woman left behind that they are going to leave them destitute. There is no remedy. A disinherited spouse or child has no legal remedy, no chance of bringing the case before the court, and it leaves a slur upon them—"There must have been something, some reason why the father or husband treated them in this way." What would anybody think if it were the law that a man could escape his debts to his tailor, to his lawyer or to his landlord by the act of death? His debts have to be paid out of his estate. Is there no debt that a man puts upon himself when he brings a child into the world or marries a woman, when he uses the form of words, "With all my worldly goods I thee endow"? He takes upon himself a solemn responsibility from which he should not be allowed to escape. The evils which arise out of the present state of the law can be remedied if this Bill is given a chance and if the Government give it fair play.

1.18 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: There are not many words I want to say in giving this Bill my support. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) drew attention to one small point as to whether, in covering the maintenance of a child, the Bill dealt only with infant children. I think that there is no doubt as a matter of fair law that, as used in the Bill, the word "child" is deliberately intended to cover children whatever their age. The mere relation of parent and child is what is aimed at. I would pay my tribute to the drafting of the Bill. It is obviously very well drafted and seems well designed to avoid the evils that arise occasionally under other jurisdictions that have a similar system of legislation, and, at the same time, to give the court the opportunity to do substantial justice every


time. It might even be said that the main difficulty of the Bill is that it does throw on the court the burden of exercising a discretion. I believe that the courts are well equipped for the proper use of discretion and that it is a very healthy thing to extend in a good many directions the practice of entrusting the courts with discretion. It makes their work a little more onerous, but it enables innumerable social services in the wider sense of the term to be worked properly if we once get into the habit of leaving things to the discretion of the court.
It is now becoming not uncommon to find in the legislation of this country successive adoptions of those branches of the law of other countries which have for centuries been unknown to us. The English system of law has spread, of course over most of the Dominions and substantial portions of the Colonies, and practically the whole of the United States of America. It is very different in a great many ways from the systems of law, largely, but not of course wholly, based on the Roman, that have found favour in other civilised countries. Where they have appeared to be better than the English law we have rather slowly and cautiously got into the habit of adopting some of their features, modifying them to suit our own temperament and generally lagging behind our own Dominions in doing it. Those who know anything about the Adoption of Children Act, for example, which has now had something like a ten years run, must agree that while it was adopted with a little anxiety on the part of some conservative-minded people, it has been a brilliant success and has avoided many evils and anxieties and given many families the feeling of greater security which they might not otherwise have possessed. I do not think that it is extravagant to suggest that if the Government will in one way or the other see that this Bill becomes law now, we may in ten years time look back upon it as a substantial improvement in the lot of mankind.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. Denville: I am in favour of the principle of this Bill, and I hope to give it my support at every stage, but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the pro-

moters. Machinery should be provided so that the Bill will work equally in all directions. I have in mind the case of a husband who deserts his wife for no earthly reason except that he is infatuated with someone else, and in course of time that innocent woman suffers. We must agree that that is wrong and that it should be put right. On the other hand, I have in mind a Lancashire phrase "from clogs to clogs." How are we to legislate for the son who is a spendthrift of his father's property? How are we to get over such a case? There is another type of case with which we have to deal. I have in mind a certain incident that happened only this week. A close friend of mine died on Monday. Over 25 years ago he married one of three sisters, each one of whom is separated from her husband. They were all noted for their bad tempers. Life became intolerable for this decent fellow. When he separated from his wife he made her a provision of £2 a week, which was more than a man of his position could afford. Two or three years after the separation he came in contact with another woman who was suffering in similar circumstances to himself.

Mr. Gallacher: They always do!

Mr. Denville: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is, I take it, speaking feelingly. It may be prevalent in West Fife.

Mr. Gallacher: No, you are wrong there.

Mr. Denville: This couple had been together for 25 years, to my knowledge, and were a very happy couple indeed, and their only regret was that they could not be married legally. I have never met a happier or more honest and straightforward couple, and as a friend of both of them I have often regretted that circumstances were such that they could not carry out what they had in their hearts. The man passed away. What would be the position under this Bill in the case of a couple in similar circumstances? Are we to say that the wife who has been living apart from her husband for 25 years shall be in a position, with the support of the law, to have the woman who has lived with that husband for 25 years or more—make it as long as you like—thrown out into the street? Is she to


be neglected altogether in order that a vindictive wife may benefit? There are vindictive women just as there are vindictive men. Those are the only two points I wish to put forward. Otherwise, I think it is a very good Bill; and after having listened to the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who is an authority on this sort of thing, I felt more impressed with the strength of the Bill than before. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading, and that in Committee its provisions will be so drawn that the vindictive woman will have no more chance in the courts than the vindictive man.

1.28 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) made a double-barrelled appeal to the Government. I am glad to be able to satisfy her as regards one point. I can tell her that we do not intend to ask the House to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and it may give her and those who support the Bill some satisfaction to know that the degree of support which it obtains to-day on Second Reading will necessarily be a matter which the Government will have to take into account. The second request which she made, namely, that the Government should take up this Bill, falls into a different category, and I am afraid that I shall not be able to satisfy her on that. I hope she will not object if I put the position this way: This is a private Members'. Bill and that each of the private Members' Bills is to some extent, so far as the Government are concerned, a cuckoo in the nest, and at this stage of the Session it is a little difficult to give any forecast of how much breathing-space we can allow the bird at a later stage.

Mr. Groves: If any.

The Solicitor-General: If any, as I am reminded by one who has great professional experience of the difficulties of affording Parliamentary time. At any rate, it is not possible for the Government, at this stage, to give any undertaking as to any course they may take in the future as regards the Bill. I should like to explain that when I answered the hon. Lady a moment ago I did so under a partial misapprehension, and may have said something which was not quite correct.

I think that all, or at any rate most of, the Amendments which were suggested by the Government when the Bill was before the House previously were, as she says, adopted by the promoters. I find that there are a considerable number of Amendments which do not appear in the present Bill, but I understand that that is because they were not reached on the Report stage. Therefore, although there was a modicum of right in what I said, I could have wished, from the point of view of looking at the Bill as an instrument for carrying out the promoters' intentions, that it had embodied more of the Amendments which had been suggested, but no doubt they will be borne in mind if the Bill goes to another place.
There is no need for me to depart from the commendable brevity which has characterised all the speeches here to-day, but I feel that as the Government take no attitude on the matter at the present time there are one or two things which it might be wise to point out to the House, and to those who may be in charge of the Bill in Committee if the House does give it a Second Reading. The history of the Bill has been quite correctly stated by one of the promoters from the other side. The original Bill was rejected by a Select Committee. That Bill followed the Scottish model, which did not commend itself, for various reasons, to that Select Committee. To replace that Bill this type of Bill, which follows a New Zealand model, was introduced in 1933, and again in 1934, and on the latter occasion it was only through lack of Parliamentary time that it was not seen to its conclusion. The Bill we now have follows that last model, and has this advantage, that a great many of the corrections which were made by the Committee, and by the House on Report stage, have been embodied in it.
Moreover, there is, I think, very general agreement, not only in this House but also outside it, that we are dealing here with an evil which, if it can be remedied, should be remedied. I think there is a grave hardship in cases—which are notorious—where the partner for life has been excluded from the will of a testator, but it would not be candid for us to pretend that the Bill does not present several difficulties or that it completely meets the situation. As has been pointed out, there is nothing


in the Bill to prevent voluntary settlements which would evade the purpose of the promoters of the Bill. On the other hand, it may do something which is worse than leaving the slur on those who survive, of which the hon. Lady spoke. She pointed out that the mere act of shutting out from a will a widow or a child leaves a slur. If this Bill becomes law it will probably be found that testators will be forced to include in their wills not a nebulous but a precise statement of why they have cut out their wives or why they have cut out a particular child, and it will be by no means an easy task for the courts to find out where the rights and wrongs of the matter lie.
Perhaps I may be permitted to give a personal experience of a will suit in which I was engaged when I was a private member of the Bar. A gentleman had been separated from his wife for a considerable number of years. He was a very wealthy man. When they separated he offered his wife this arrangement: "I will either give you so many thousands of pounds for your life, settled so that you shall have it for as long as you live, or I will give you double that amount for our joint lives. I am not supposed to be as healthy as you are, and therefore if I give you twice as much for our joint lives you will be able to make provision for yourself in the event of my death—insure my life and so on." She accepted the larger sum, the double amount, which was several thousand pounds, and she continued to enjoy that sum of money for a very long period of time.
The testator said to his advisors: "Mark my words; when I die she will not have made provision for herself and she will try to persuade some court of law that I was insane when I made this will. I therefore insist upon seeing the best alienists that I can command and having my mental state inquired into when I made this will." What occurred was exactly as he had anticipated. He died in the course of nature, not having seen his wife for a very great many years, but having made that double provision for her, and on his death an action was brought to obtain for her, on the basis of injustice, what the widow said she

was entitled to and what he had meanwhile left to charity.
I give that case as a personal experience and as indicating that it does not always follow that the exclusion of a person from a will is an act of injustice, or that provision has not previously been made; or, indeed, that the best interests of a party are served by forcing the testator to put into black and white the circumstances which led him to draft his will in that way. Other matters leap to the eye in a Bill of this character, such as, for example, the very heavy burden, as was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), cast upon the courts which have to look into all the circumstances of the cases. I do not think I should be candid if I did not point out that there is another side to a Bill of this kind. There are various difficulties, and it is possible that the evils which the promoters intend to remove will not necessarily be removed by the Bill. Whether that can be remedied by Amendments when the Bill reaches Committee stage is not for me to say. So far as the Government are concerned, they do not oppose the Bill at the present stage. We shall consider carefully the course of the Debate to-day and the degree of unanimity that has been expressed, and in the light of those matters the Government will have to make up their minds at a later stage.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

HOME AND EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. Louis Smith: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
When my supporters and I presented this Bill we were not aware of the Government's intentions with regard to Empire settlement. Since that date, a Financial Resolution has been carried, on Tuesday last, and during the last day or two we have received the Bill which the Government propose to bring before


us next week. I was pleased that in the Government's proposals the 50 per cent. grant has been increased to 75 per cent. Most speakers on Tuesday deplored that the Government found it necessary or advisable to reduce the amount of money allotted to this purpose. The two main points of the Bill which I am introducing are, to bring the United Kingdom into the Empire by making it possible for home settlements to act as training grounds for settlements overseas, and secondly, in order to ensure a more efficient and perfect working of the Empire Settlement Act, to set up a Board of three full-time Members for that purpose. A Bill with very similar objects received a Second Reading without Division on two previous occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) sponsored the Bill on the first occasion, in 1928. In 1933, after a full day's Debate, when many Members, of whom I was one, in all parts of the House were in favour of the Bill, a similar Bill received a Second Reading.
The Empire Settlement Act was passed in 1922 to give effect to the recommendations of the Imperial Conference of the previous year. That Measure was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who has a thorough and extensive knowledge of this subject. The House will be interested to know that he is a keen supporter of the present Bill. In the Act, the United Kingdom Government undertook to co-operate, on a 50-50 basis with the Dominions, in an expenditure of £3,000,000 per year. Most of the assistance given to migration since that date has been given under that Act. The Government, in the Financial Resolution passed on Tuesday, found it necessary to reduce the amount to £1,500,000, but those who support this Bill were encouraged to hear from the Secretary of State for the Dominions, when he wound up the Debate, that, in the event of further money being required, he gave an undertaking to introduce legislation at the earliest possible moment to provide it. His concluding words were:
I assure the Committee that we regard this problem of migration as one of very great importance, and we should do everything to present the legislation to the House at an early moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1937; col. 91, Vol. 319.]

Those who support the Bill do not agree that the Act of 1922 was in any way a failure. A great deal of useful work has been done since that date, and large numbers of persons have been settled overseas. Since only one-seventh of the amount of money has been spent which was allowed under the Act, my supporters and I consider that the results are satisfactory. There is a large amount of valuable information in the hands of the Secretary of State, and there can be little doubt that if more courage and boldness are put into these efforts during the next few years, now that trade is much better in the Dominions and in this country, much more success will be obtained, on the modified lines which we suggest and in the light of the experience gained during the last few years.
Clause I of the Bill includes land settlement at home, and offers benefits to suitable people who wish to till the soil of this country. Considerable criticism has been levelled at the impossibility of taking a man from city life direct to the Dominions. It will be much more useful if we can train that man on the land in this country. Farmers are not made in a few months. We know that many urban dwellers, such as miners, make very good settlers on the land, and that their sons and daughters may well compare in a few years with the pioneers who built up the great agricultural colonies in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. That result cannot be carried through by a wave of the wand. It needs very careful planning and careful financial judgment. To-day we are suffering in this country from a lower rural population, and the soil is still going down to grass. Fifty years ago we had 5,000,000 more acres of land under arable cultivation than we have to-day, and during that period of 50 years about 500,000 workers have been compelled to find their living in other ways than on the land. Let us make of some parts of our own country a training ground for the potential Empire builders of the future.
There have been difficulties in the past over this 50-50 arrangement with the Dominions. I would submit to the House that there should be the greatest measure of flexibility with regard to this matter, and that it should be possible, not only to allow the 75 per cent. for which, we are pleased to learn, the Government are


arranging, in certain directions, but to allow it in the case of land settlement and development generally. Why should we make such a stipulation to-day? The putting of people to work on production in our Dominions assuredly creates potential customers for our manufactured goods at home. We have money lying in the banks at low interest, and there never has been a time when it would appear so desirable to show adventure and courage. The Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Lyons, said only last March:
We have reached a stage of recovery when we must not only permit, but invite our kith and kin to come here.
Can we not ask ourselves whether there was ever a better chance of success than there is to-day, and hammer out a big scheme? As I said on Tuesday, in these days of international anxiety I believe it is important for us to take action in filling some of the sparsely populated territories of our Empire which to-day are exciting the envy of hard-pressed leaders of countries which have too great a population.
Clause 2 of the Bill refers to the Board whose duty it would be to carry out the provisions of the Bill under the control of the Secretary of State. I have very carefully read the reports of the previous boards, and, as a business man, I hold strongly the opinion that the amount of work involved in this connection demands the services of a full-time board. My belief is that, the smaller the board, the more result is likely to be achieved. If it were possible to leave such heavy responsibilities in the hands of one man, I would say, let us have a committee of one man, but I propose the next best thing, a board of three full-time members. It will, in the opinion of my supporters and myself, be necessary for these members to visit the Dominions from time to time, and it is not possible for all the duties required of such a board to be effectively carried out unless its members are paid and full-time servants of the State. May I point out, in passing, that the board sitting on these matters in 1935 had an entirely different personnel from that of 1936, with the exception of the chairman and vice-chairman, and the chairman was a very hard-worked Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Dominions. I think the House will agree with me that it is very difficult to carry

out these great schemes from year to year when the Board has an entirely new personnel even in the short period of 12 months. We need minds having long experience to follow up constantly and from year to year the details of this very complicated and difficult problem.
Why do we suggest that the United Kingdom should be brought into the Empire for the purposes of this Measure? We do so for two reasons. One is that we have an unemployment problem at home. We have a "hard core" of at least 300,000 men to put to work. We also realise fully that in the near future we shall need greatly to increase our export trade in order to keep in regular employment those who are now at work. But we also, and this is an important reason, consider that it would be most desirable to arrange for agricultural training grounds to prepare the right sort of people to go overseas. We are told that there are not the people in the country to-day who are wishful to go abroad, but, so far as I can read or can hear, that is certainly not true. Only a very short time ago I heard in this House the predecessor of our present Dominions Secretary state that at least 50,000 were always ready to make this great adventure. I read a report of a speech a few days ago made by Lord Riverdale at a College of Commerce in London. He used these words:
The young people have an Empire to go to, There is fierce competition in other countries, and they are doing everything they can to educate themselves to compete with us in every walk of life, but they have not got an Empire. Many parts of the British Empire are waiting to be developed, and I hope some of you will grasp that opportunity and go out and help to build up the Empire by energy, hard work and pluck.
In conclusion, may I say a word about the home land settlement? It is common knowledge that in the case of some settlements the promoters have been disappointed, but I believe that in most cases the impossible has been attempted, and the wrong type of land has been purchased. I am informed that a 30 to 40-acre holding, mostly arable, in the Fen and warp areas has enabled a family to make a living, but that smaller holdings say of 10 or 15 acres, especially on wold land, have proved a failure. It is impossible to expect a man to make a living on poor land, and especially on too small an area.
In these days of international anxiety, and when national defence is again the predominant question of the day, we certainly cannot go wrong in taking action that will increase the production of foodstuffs at home. The Government have recently set up a new Department, to be known as the Food (Defence Plans) Department, and that Department will, without doubt, find on close investigation that the first consideration will be to increase the percentage of home-grown foodstuffs. In this connection the powers given to my proposed new Settlement Board will be of inestimable value. These two amendments to the Government's Act—first, the inclusion of the United Kingdom as part of the Empire; and, secondly, the setting up of a full-time development board who can give their whole time to this problem —are in my opinion essential to the success of Empire settlement, and without them, I fear, we shall not progress much further than, unfortunately, we have during the last year or two. It is increasingly important, in view of the international anxiety which exists, that we should make a wider and a bolder effort to develop these great resources which exist under the British flag, and accordingly I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

1.55 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that this Bill was first introduced by me in 1928 and that it received, after a whole day's discussion, a Second Reading without a Division. This Bill is almost identical, though it contains some improvements, as we consider them to be. It received a Second Reading again without a Division in 1929, and in 1933 we again had a full day's Debate and the Bill received a Second Reading. It is impossible to blind one's eyes to the fact that it contains a Money Resolution, which needs Government support, and I am afraid that support is not likely to be forthcoming in view of the result of the discussion on the Financial Resolution for the Government's Measure, but I suggest, if the House approves the principle of the Bill, that it might be given a Second Reading as a guide to the Government, and then its future would be on the lap of the gods. There is one word in the first Clause that I would particu-

larly point out. It gives power to afford assistance to any suitable persons or body of persons to settle in or develop—it is the word "develop"—any part of His Majesty's overseas Dominions or Colonies. That is the main point in dealing with this immense question of migration. It is not a question of unemployment; it is a question of development which would produce employment in a natural way—employment which would give work to workers throughout the Empire for generations to come. I think that is the way to look at this great question.
The Bill provides for the maintenance of the amount of £3,000,000 a year which was authorised by the 1922 Empire Settlement Act. Most unfortunately, as most of us think—in nearly every speech on the Financial Resolution this disappointment was expressed the Government have reduced the maximum amount which may be spent in any one year from £3,000,000 to £1,500,000. The Government will save nothing practically, because in the years since 1922 £3,000,000 was a paper amount. Only £1,250,000 was spent in any one year. If you leave the maximum of £3,000,000, you do not necessarily increase the expenditure. That amount would be provided for in the Estimate and what was not spent would go back into the Exchequer. That is a point that we regret, and even now I hope it may be possible for the Secretary of State to modify his decision, especially as the effect upon the Dominions must be disastrous.
What we consider the chief proposal of the Bill is the setting up of a real Empire Settlement Board. There is an Overseas Settlement Board at the Dominions Office now. It consists of officials. The prevailing tone of the board is officialdom. A certain number of distinguished ladies and gentlemen sit with these officials perhaps once a week or once a fortnight, and discuss matters. That is not the way to deal with this all-important Imperial matter. What is needed is a board of the best brains in the Empire, the very best men all over the Empire, the board sitting here and their opposite numbers in the Dominions, always meeting and travelling over the Empire, seeing the possibilities of development and encouraging the carrying out of schemes. If we had a real board we might look forward to real progress. I ask the House to sanction that principle. It has already been sanc-


tioned three times and I suggest that we might again give the Bill a Second Reading without a Division to mark our approval of the principles contained in it, even if the prospects of proceeding further are small.

2.2 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: There is a question which I consider of very great importance that

arises upon this Bill, but before dealing with it I should like to draw attention to some confusion that seems to exist—

Notice taken that 4o Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Six Minutes after Two o'Clock until Monday, 25th January.